RoR: Forum

Matt: Some of these other posters I can understand. But when you constantly fail to get it, all I can do is guess that you simply didn't read the real sequence here. (And ironically, it's Nicole herself that made the mountain out of a molehill.)

I think the deeper thing going on here is that some people here, strangely, regard their moral job as being done if they take steps *in reality* to correct the mistake, while neglecting to take steps *in their mind* to correct what in fact caused the mistake in the first place. This means going beyond a concrete-bound mentality, from "well, I guess I'll never do *that* again", to a principled, conceptual, *human* mentality of "what *principle* did I fail to act on or understand properly, and why?"

These people are right out of Ayn Rand's essay on "The Missing Link": "The main characteristic of this mentality is a special kind of passivity: not passivity as such and not across-the-board, but passivity beyond a certain limit--i.e., passivity in regard to the process of conceptualization and, therefore, in regard to fundamental principles. It is a mentality which has decided, at a certain point of development, that it knows enough and does not care to look further. What does it accept as 'enough'? The immediately given, directly perceivable concretes of its background..." --Ayn Rand

Post 61

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 11:57am

Nicole, here's a little thought experiment I'd like to share with you:

3 people find a wallet on the street that contains money, credit cards, etc. There is sufficient ID in the wallet to make an attempt to return it to its rightful owner. The first finder takes the wallet and keeps it for himself. The second finder considers keeping the wallet, yet thinks twice and decides to return it intact. The third finder doesn't think twice, and immediately decides to return the wallet intact. The question is, which finder showed the most moral growth?

Some people are tempted to answer instinctively that the person who didn't think twice showed the most moral growth, yet he remained static, he made a choice automatically based on either an ethics of duty or maybe even an ethics of rational self interest combined with a desire to not see others lose something. But the person who considered keeping it yet reconsidered actually grew through his decision.

Mistakes happen, don't beat yourself up if you're willing to learn and grow. :)

Post 62

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 12:04pm

Double post deleted.

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 4/24, 12:12pm)

Post 63

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 12:04pm

Shayne,

all I can do is guess that you simply didn't read the real sequence here

Ok, if I've been unfair to you (or anyone else) then I apologise, but I have to wonder which part of the sequence do you think I've missed?

I think the deeper thing going on here is that some people here, strangely, regard their moral job as being done if they take steps *in reality* to correct the mistake, while neglecting to take steps *in their mind* to correct what in fact caused the mistake in the first place. This means going beyond a concrete-bound mentality, from "well, I guess I'll never do *that* again", to a principled, conceptual, *human* mentality of "what *principle* did I fail to act on or understand properly, and why?"

Sorry? I don't think anyone was ever in doubt as to the principle of copyright...Nicole herself accepts that she initially failed to act on it here, though she absolutely did act on it after you (quite rightly) pointed out her mistake.

As for who made a mountain out of a molehill...you kept on at Nicole even after she contacted both the author and NYT to explain the situation, and even the raised issue of Napster. Persistent, knowing, deliberate copyright violation which has rightly been clamped down. Then you started insulting her when she told you she was dealing with it and didn't need your advice.

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 4/24, 12:58pm)

Post 64

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 12:09pm

Shayne,

Sorry dude. I don't remember hearing such a load of horseshit in a long time.

Quote from Nicole's first post - Post 7:

I hope that this one mistake does not brand me an irrational fool. I will set it right.

Right from that moment she understood the principle. She did set it right. And she also was hurt by your form of expression. (Does that make you feel good?)

I have been refraining from talking about this in public, but I am getting pretty sick of the Randroid Shuffle on these things. Here is what it is from an e-mail I wrote:

There is a game that "Randroids" play that I can�t stand. They love to call each other out to see who is more "rational" or not. They speak only in Objectivist jargon. They normally have very little use for laughter. They are obnoxious at the drop of a hat - in the misguided belief that they are being "rugged" or bluntly honest. And some of them are very intelligent in their arguments.

The way the game goes is that Person A will say something. Person B will counter with a snide disagreement. "A" will then either cite Rand or some Objectivist principle. "B" comes back with the same. If one dares to give a reason outside of Objectivism (Rand quote or Peikoff quote or something equally orthodox), then the other will call him irrational, or dishonest, or practicing evasion. (There are several other derogatory terms they like to use also, but you get the idea.) The other responds and off they go. Sometimes they get at each others� throats. The sad ending is when they just call each other names and stomp off. The happy ending is when the trounced party thanks his vanquisher for making him see the light.

From everything I have seen so far, this whole little game does not have true understanding and learning as its purpose. It seems to be a way of social interaction (like Martians might do for instance) and scratching neurotic itches.

Shayne in particular is very neurotic. On several threads, posters have been happily going about discussing something important and exuding a "feel-good" attitude. That is when he has popped in saying that he disagrees with what people are talking about and that whoever postulates such trash is beyond contempt.

It really doesn�t matter what the topic is. You can twist any principle out of shape to fit that kind of intent. I know he does.

My point here, Shayne, is that not only did Nicole get it, so did everybody else on this thread. I just don't like the Randroid Shuffle and I do like to feel good. I believe the other posters you are so concerned about feel and think the same way.

Have a good day.

Michael

Post 65

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 12:18pm

I liked your analogy, Joe. The one who made a conscious decision to do the right thing gained the most value from the experience as well..

Post 66

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 1:21pm

*putting down my school books for half a second*

I just couldn't go without saying: ya'll get it! And thank you for being honest, for the advice (most of all), the support, the humor, and even the marriage proposals. ;o)

If I could write my positions down as clearly as the more experienced of you, this may have been over long ago.

It's been a very fulfilling experience to interact with all of you. I've learned a lot.

I'll still keep you updated on the NYT response. I have yet to know more.

*hittin' the books for a few more hours...*

~NT

Post 67

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 2:33pm

Matt,

Ok, if I've been unfair to you (or anyone else) then I apologise, but I have to wonder which part of the sequence do you think I've missed?

Evidently, you missed the parts where:

1. Nicole posts an unprincipled (as Dean puts it, "ad populum") argument, ignoring the principle of property rights.

2. I post a blunt but not inappropriate response affirming the proper principles.

3. Nicole flies off the handle, both severely distorting my response and blowing everything way out of proportion while ignoring the entire point of my post, the other emotionalists in the forum start to swarm in, and this starts turning into a traffic accident.

Shayne

Post 68

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 2:40pm

Nicole, I also have to wonder if it was that big of a deal. You didn't make any money by posting the article, you didn't claim it as your own, and you gave the author free advertising and promotion, which certainly undercuts any loss incurred.
If I may rationalize for a moment, basically you were having a conversation with some friends about an article you read and liked. If you quoted the article at length verbally, would you have been guilty of copyright infringement? Would the author come looking for his royalties? I think not. It wasn't that bad, really.

Post 69

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 2:44pm

Shayne,

1. Nicole quoted the author of the article saying that "everyone does it", which is now being distorted as Nicole having made an argument.

2. You post a blunt and totally inappropriate response.

3. Nicole justifiably flies off the handle at item #2 above, others swarm in and rally to her defence.

4. I am done responding to you on this topic.

MH

Post 70

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 3:07pm

Matt:

1. Nicole quoted the author of the article saying that "everyone does it", which is now being distorted as Nicole having made an argument.

Nicole obviously approved of the argument. And I obviously gave you too much benefit of the doubt. Interesting though, that you seem to grasp (if barely), that the argument was wrong.

4. I am done responding to you on this topic.

Good. Now if we could get all the emotionalists to shut their traps about this, we'd be in great shape here.

Post 71

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 4:30pm

The only emotionalist I see here is a shayne-ster one.....

Post 72

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 6:03pm

Quote from Ayelet Waldman in e-mail to Nicole:

"Dear Nicole,
Don't worry. Seriously. DO NOT WORRY.

People do this all the time. They paste up articles, email them around. Post them. ...

There is a silly little argument running around here practically equating this statement with a moral sanction for theft. This argument, actually, is a very good example of what happens when context is removed from a quote and from a situation.

By no strain of the imagination can I imagine Ms Waldman meaning here that it is OK for Nicole to rip off her property, or that of the NYT, at will. I do not see that she was speaking in a "moral principle of property rights" context.

What I do see is that she was trying to set Nicole's mind at ease as to the complete lack of gravity of her mistake, her "infringement" if you will. I certainly did not see anyone trying to use this argument as grounds for saying that it was OK to do it again.

Another context is that the facility to copy and post digital intellectual content is a legal headache that is being dealt with by many fine minds who are most interested in the legal/moral aspects and are in a position to do something about it. New media (technically called "support" in copyright jargon) as powerful as the Internet always create situations where old laws and moral rules do not apply and simply do not work, so they have to be studied and defined anew.

I would emphatically like to say that dropping contexts is one of the most deadly irrational things a man can do with his mind - it is a basic error and/or evasion of identifying reality. It sure is a temptation to go on and speculate about the motivations of those who are now insisting on doing precisely that.

But for the benefit of the doubt, supposing (as was hinted in an earlier post) that such an irrationalist/evader was interested in protecting others from making moral mistakes that would hurt them later on, we can move this to the concrete level and deal with the horse's mouth, so to speak.

We could get in contact with Ayelet Waldman and explain to her that she was morally sanctioning an unspeakable evil that would have dire consequences on her future - and that she was leading the young and impressionable down the pathway to becoming epistimelogical missing links by her example.

After all, she is in the marketplace, successfully writing brilliant articles at the New York Times for hire while we are writing for free here on SOLO. I am sure that she would take our professional and moral considerations to heart and gratefully mend her despicable and irrational ways.

Michael

Post 73

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 8:32pm

...the facility to copy and post digital intellectual content is a legal headache that is being dealt with by many fine minds who are most interested in the legal/moral aspects and are in a position to do something about it. New media (technically called "support" in copyright jargon) as powerful as the Internet always create situations where old laws and moral rules do not apply and simply do not work, so they have to be studied and defined anew.

I will be very interested to see where the judiciary takes this issue. As someone who publishes completely on the internet, I realize -- with great dismay -- that it is virtually impossible for me to track everywhere my words and photos appear. There is nothing to stop cutting and pasting, or taking screen shots of web pages, etc. I currently do random searches on certain unique phrases to see if someone has pinched them.

The Creative Commons license that many bloggers use seems to address some of the issue, but again, it is 'permission' that can be ignored quite easily.

As someone who intends to make a living from this, I see it as a double-edged sword: If someone posts my work, giving me the credit, it provides further exposure for me (which is likely Ms. Waldman's point). However, it also takes money out of my pocket, if I am charging a subscription for my work.

If someone were to steal my words completely, attributing authorship to themselves, then hell hath no fury. But that is a separate issue.

***Addendum:***

I would like to add that I think Nicole is doing her damnedest to rectify the situation, and has actually shown a great deal of character in her determination to do so. To be clear, my post is *not* a repudiation of her, but rather a question regarding this issue as a whole. I think the poor girl has flogged herself over this more than anyone else, and I do not wish to add another crack of the whip.

(Edited by Jennifer Iannolo on 4/24, 11:02pm)

Post 74

Monday, April 25, 2005 - 8:46am

Jeff said:

Nicole,

I have a couple of questions for you.

1. Have you ever heard of the concept of 'mail-order bride'?
2. Would you consider it?

Nichole said:

Thank you all for your kindness and good advice. (And I don't know about the mail order bride thing... are you rich? lol... just kidding. I am a future bride already. But I am flattered. ;o)

Come on, where is that capitalist spirit? She should at least go to the highest bidder ;)

Post 75

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 10:09pm

A very good article indeed. I know that I am not the only person whose parents have split because they lost their romantic ardor. I was certainly spoiled by my parents, and I know that my mom spent way too much attention on me as a child. Perhaps that is the reason that my father and her had disagreements and broke it off.

I can understand that because (and my girlfriend can testify to this) I get frustrated when I feel like I am not getting the attention that I deserve from my partner. I think that your article is very good, Nicki. This is a blueprint for families abroad. I have been happy in my life for a long time, but I feel that my parents have not. Is the author of this article or her husband unhappy? We do not know enough to judge such, but they at least will stay together for a long time, I assume... and not for the kids.

-David Appel

Post 76

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 3:26pm

Shayne,

Thank you again for pointing out that Nicki has made a wrong by posting this article up. We didn't already realize that. Thank you also for pointing out that her attempts to right her wrong have been in vane.

Now, on a less sarcastic note, you remind me of the people who, one becoming police officers, suddenly have an aneurism when they see kids outside after curfew. I find it hard to believe that you compared Nicki's posting of this article as akin to Napster. That is like comparing someone who walks out of an all-you-can-eat Chinese restaurant with a fortune cookie when you aren't supposed to take food out of the store.

If you have a personal crusade against copyright violations, pursue it somewhere other than on a forum thread where the goal is to help people learn how they can become better individuals in their love and family life. Do you go into a church to lecture a preacher that he is misguided? If so, that is your business, but it is not something one should do, as it is nothing more than antagonistic indoctrination.

If you want to post against copyright laws on this site, perhaps you should start your own thread, rather than berate someone who has already been told multiple times of her error and has worked hard to correct it.

Thank you much.
David Appel

Post 77

Monday, April 25, 2005 - 11:59am

People...let's PLEASE let this drop, eh?

All points made, understood, rectified.

Post 78

Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:17pm

Hi David: Thanks for adding some levity to this tiresome thread. Your subtle humor is not lost on me. Accusing me of being a policeman -- while you police me -- great stuff. Now if the rest of these folks only had the same kind of razor-sharp intellect that you obviously have, none of this misunderstanding would have ever happened.

Robert: I sympathize and agree. I just thought David deserved a compliment for his good sense of humor.

Post 79

Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:32pm